MeiGen AI Design MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming safe retrieval. The description adds valuable behavioral context about output consumption patterns (displaying to users, feeding into generate_image, style transfer usage) that annotations don't cover. Does not mention error cases (e.g., invalid imageId), preventing a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences efficiently structured: purpose (sentence 1), immediate action (sentence 2), downstream integration (sentence 3). No redundant words. Front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence earns its place by advancing agent understanding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the single parameter with complete schema coverage and readOnly annotation, the description adequately covers the retrieval behavior and output utilization. Minor gap: doesn't mention what happens if the imageId doesn't exist, but sufficiently complete for a simple lookup tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 100% coverage with 'imageId' well-described. The description adds semantic context by implying the parameter represents a 'gallery entry' and linking it to 'search_gallery results', helping agents understand this tool consumes output from its sibling. Exceeds baseline 3 by providing provenance context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') with clear resource ('gallery entry') and scope ('full prompt and all image URLs'). It distinguishes from sibling 'search_gallery' by implying this retrieves specific details after searching, and from 'generate_image' by noting this retrieves prompts rather than creating images.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use ('Show the images to the user as visual examples') and provides clear workflow integration naming siblings: 'used directly with generate_image()' and 'passed as referenceImages for style transfer'. This establishes the tool's position in a multi-step workflow.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.